Instructions

ZOOM IN by clicking on the page. A slider will appear, allowing you to adjust your zoom level. Return to the original size by clicking on the page again.

MOVE the page around when zoomed in by dragging it.

ADJUST the zoom using the slider on the top right.

ZOOM OUT by clicking on the zoomed-in page.

SEARCH by entering text in the search field and click on "In This Issue" or "All Issues" to search the current issue or the archive of back issues
respectively.
.

PRINT by clicking on thumbnails to select pages, and then press the
print button.

SHARE this publication and page.

ROTATE PAGE allows you to turn pages 90 degrees clockwise or counterclockwise.Click on the page to return to the original orientation. To zoom in on a rotated page, return the page to its original orientation, zoom in, and
then rotate it again.

CONTENTS displays a table of sections with thumbnails and descriptions.

ALL PAGES displays thumbnails of every page in the issue. Click on
a page to jump.

A23
commentary
June 7, 2015 www.guardian.co.tt Sunday Guardian
People who believe in demons
should not be allowed to influ-
ence education policy.
Last week, schoolchildren started
playing a pencil-and-paper game
that was supposed to invoke a Mex-
ican demon called Charlie. As it
turned out, the game was just part
of a marketing strategy for an
upcoming horror movie. But that a
Mexican demon should be named
"Charlie" didn't tip off any of the
education officials and activists who,
even without being possessed,
became hysterical.
So head of the National Parent
Teachers Association, Zena Ramatali,
said this was "clearly an evil game"
that children should not "dabble in."
And Lana Boodoo-Maharaj, founder
of the Stop the Bullying lobby, went
even further to claim, as though she
had seen it with her own eyes, that
chairs had levitated off the ground.
In this place, then, adults involved
in education believe in demons, but
not in gravity.
Of course, the religious leaders,
like Catholic Archbishop Joseph Har-
ris and his Anglican counterpart
Claude Berkley, advised caution
against this non-existent entity. The
media also failed to cover this story
professionally, with only the
Guardian reporter contacting a psy-
chiatrist for an alternative perspective
but, instead of using his mass hys-
teria explanation as her lead, buried
his comment in the middle of the
article and even quoted him so it
seemed as though he had admitted
that chairs levitated.
Similarly, no education official
made a clear and unequivocal state-
ment that any disruptions were
probably not due to demonic activity,
but to children who were either
deluded or mischievous. Instead, the
Education Ministry catered to the
superstitious by threatening to sus-
pend students caught playing the
game.
Now it's bad enough that ordinary
people in this place believe such
nonsense. But when persons involved
in schools are equally ignorant, what
hope is there for education to bring
our society out of its social and eco-
nomic morass?
Consider the messages sent by
telling children that demons exist.
First, it means that any wrong acts
they do is not a result of their choices
nor do they have any responsibility
for the consequences. Instead, their
actions are being dictated by an enti-
ty more powerful than their own
will or intelligence. (Paradoxically,
however, the same people who
believe in demon possession also
believe that people who commit evil
acts should be punished.)
Secondly, the "cure" involves
prayer and other ineffectual rituals
which often inflict pain and suffering.
Since people considered "possessed"
are usually victims of mental illness,
a belief in demons thus diminishes
empathy and compassion while
exacerbating sadism. So belief in
demons, like religion generally, cor-
rupts moral sensibilities.
Thirdly, such beliefs undermine
the very foundations of education:
logical and empirical thinking. Chil-
dren can learn in two ways: by rote
and by analysis. Both are necessary
but, in this place, the majority of
our scholarship winners are merely
children who are good at memorising
and regurgitation. The few very
smart people we produce are not
smart because of the education they
got at the prestige denominational
schools, but in spite of it.
A good education system imparts
skills and knowledge to most chil-
dren. A very good education system
teaches children how to acquire skills
and knowledge for themselves. And
an excellent education system teach-
es children how to apply skills and
analyse knowledge. It is not coin-
cidence that every nation with a
first-class education system (and
consequential social and economic
advancement) adheres to secular
policies in which religious beliefs
have little or no impact on peda-
gogy.
Over the past decades, the Edu-
cation Ministry has, in vikey-vie
fashion, been trying to re-tool the
system to advance from mediocre
to good. But, now just on the thresh-
old of attaining a "good" grade, the
world has already moved on: even
a very good education system is now
inadequate for this 21st century. That
is why Finland, whose students have
consistently been rated the best in
the world over the past two decades,
are now revamping their system to
give students a wider knowledge
base and more effective methods for
creative and analytical thinking.
Except for religious knowledge and
literature, every subject that is taught
in school is based on facts. But chil-
dren here don't learn that facts are
the basis of truth. Instead, they are
taught that facts are merely items
that you have to repeat in order to
pass exams, while "Truth" is embod-
ied in beliefs that cannot be proven
but which have been believed for
thousands of years. Hence the very
idea of progress is subliminally rub-
bished and even the bright children
learn to compartmentalise their
knowledge, which means that their
expertise in whatever fields they
study will be severely narrow.
This belief in demons demon-
strates why an effective education
cannot be left in the hands of reli-
gious organisations. If they want to
keep their own followers ignorant,
that is bad enough, but these schools
are run by state funding and affect
children from many different back-
grounds. By promoting superstitious
thinking, these educators are abusing
children because, if they were clout-
ing the students on the head every
day, the brain damage would not be
much worse.
• Kevin Baldeosingh in a profes-
sional writer, author of three nov-
els, and co-author of a history text-
book.
There is always a deep sense of
regret and disappointment
when members of the judiciary
wash their dirty linen in public. It
is not that we do not expect that
there will be personal disagreement
among them about sensitive issues,
such as promotion. It is not that
we think them immune to personal
grievance about the treatment which
is meted to them by those who
wield power over their advancement
in the judiciary. Neither is it that
we do not expect those in authority
to experience a certain pique at
being challenged about the decisions
that they make. Judges, after all,
are human and are hurt and affront-
ed just like the rest of us. What we
prefer is that the disputes which
erupt from time to time are handled
with a degree of decorum befitting
the dignity of the office. This
requires restraint from all concerned
and, more than anything else, the
suspension of our baser instincts.
I should not by any measure
be taken to be suggesting that
decisions made by the Judicial
and Legal Service Commission
(JLSC) concerning the appoint-
ment and promotion of judges
should not be subject to public
scrutiny and even, at times,
searching and anxious criticism.
The JLSC, like any other public
authority, is accountable for the
performance of its most impor-
tant public functions.
The commission comprises the
Chief Justice, the chairman of
the Public Service Commission,
one active or retired judge, and
two people with legal qualifica-
tions. The commission is
responsible for the appointment
of all judges, except the Chief
Justice, including promotions to
the Court of Appeal. Apart from
the standardised qualifications
which a person must have to be
appointed as a judge, the com-
mission is given no guidance by
the Constitution as to how it
should exercise its jurisdiction.
Whether and with whom it
should consult, what procedure
should be followed, whether and
the extent to which prospective
candidates for appointment or
promotion should be interviewed
or given an opportunity to pres-
ent their case for appointment
or promotion are left entirely to
the discretion of the commis-
sion. There is no requirement
that any aspect of the process
should be made public, and
there is no requirement that the
commission give any reasons for
any of the decisions it makes.
Appointments and promotions
can accordingly take place in
relative secrecy.
Judges make important decisions
which affect the lives of countless
people. Yet still, they are not subject
to any democratic process whereby
they receive the public's stamp of
approval, say through an election.
There is good reason for this. Judges
are required to apply the law impar-
tially. The process of appointment
and promotion is therefore more
concerned with their competence
to carry out judicial functions. This
does not lend itself to a political
campaign process. We have also
rejected any system of subjecting
prospective candidates to public
grilling by legislative committees,
such as occurs in the United States.
Again, for good reason. Our tradition
of the separation of powers leans
in favour of excluding politicians as
much as possible from any influence
over who is to be appointed to high
judicial office. Our preference has
been to vest the power of appoint-
ment and promotion in the inde-
pendent JLSC.
Nevertheless, there is every good
reason to expect that in the adoption
of its procedures the commission
would make itself as accountable
and transparent as good governance
demands and allows, and would
adopt a process that is not only fair
to all aspirants; but is seen to be
fair, and gives the commission the
best chance of obtaining the best
information available to enable it
to arrive at fully informed decisions.
This necessarily means that it
must consult with stakeholders
as widely as possible. This
includes the Law Association,
and in the case of promotion,
Court of Appeal judges. It is
the judges themselves and prac-
titioners who are most likely to
have intimate knowledge of the
capabilities and character of
candidates. In the case of pro-
motion, it is also a good idea to
canvass the High Court judges
themselves as to who among
their colleagues they think is
best suited for promotion.
The commission must also
adopt clear and precise criteria
for promotion. Clearly, seniority
cannot be an overriding factor.
The longest serving judge is not
necessarily the best suited for
higher office.
Naturally, an analysis and
assessment of a judge's written
product will be crucial in deter-
mining fitness for higher office.
It is there that the judge's capa-
bilities will be on full display.
Which judgments are consulted
should obviously be the result of
consultation with the judge
under consideration.
Much of this is uncontroversial
and the JLSC, from all reports,
adheres to most of these proce-
dures.
What conduces to controversy,
however, is the absence of any clear,
written guidelines which the com-
mission will follow in making its
decisions. Had there been such,
the dispute between the Chief Jus-
tice and Justice Gobin over whether
he had at one time said that sen-
iority would be the primary factor
in determining promotion would
have been avoided. In the belief
that this was the policy, it was quite
understandable that Justice Gobin
would be moved to enquire as to
the reason why seniority was not
applied in her case. A written policy
would have avoided any such chal-
lenge. Setting out the criteria in
advance, and giving aspirants the
opportunity to make representations
directly to the commission would
also obviate misunderstandings.
Dialogue is healthy and neces-
sary. If, for example, consulta-
tion threw up some allegation
against a judge, he or she should
be given the opportunity to dis-
pel it. Fairness requires no less.
It is unfortunate that the dis-
agreement between the JLSC
and Justice Gobin spilled over
into the public domain. Maybe
some good can come out of an
unpleasant situation if it leads to
a codification of the commis-
sion's procedures.
WASHING THE JUDICIARY'S DIRTY LINEN IN PUBLIC
DEMONIC DOTISHNESS
KEVIN BALDEOSINGH
DOUGLAS MENDES
kevin.baldeosingh@zoho.com